70s Habs and 90s Bulls Comparisons

[JackSlater]

Since you guys are talking about Lemaire, I thought I would ask it here instead of creating a new topic.

What was the reason Montreal decided to move Lemaire out of the coaching position after the 84-85 season? Was there any fallout from the friction that existed between him and LaFleur? (Based on this story: The Surprise Retirement Of Guy Lafleur)

Was it a promotion or a "promotion?" (aka hiding a person away in upper management)

If it was a promotion, is this something Lemaire wanted?

Lemaire left. He didn't like dealing with the Montreal media as the coach, if I recall correctly.

 

[c9777666]

Feels like teams that reach those dynastic heights really struggle with physical and existential fatigue. Kind of an interesting psychological study for sure. The euphoria of the early titles wear off, the bumps and bruises add up, the egos inflate, people start scanning the horizon for the exit. The franchise seems to plan its own demise from the inside, botched succession plans, myopic vision, etc. The higher you climb the more these factors seem to come into play. The dynastic death drive, if you will.

The Islanders dynasty was an interesting one. Not so much about egos (many of the core players stayed on, perhaps too long perhaps?) but mental/physical fatigue and wear/tear came into play there. Bumps and bruises, sure. Lot of their players certainly did not look for an exit (Potvin/Trottier played even after the Cup run was over, Bossy probably would have played more if not for his back injury)

Little different from the '98 Bulls.